Is Jesus an angel?

[1213]

Is Jesus an angel?

Bible says about Jesus:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5


For to which of the angels did he say at any time, "You are my Son, Today have I become your father?" and again, "I will be to him a Father, And he will be to me a Son?" Again, when he brings in the firstborn into the world he says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, And his servants a flame of fire." but of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows."
Heb. 1:5-9

Because of those, I don’t think Jesus is an angel.

 

[sooda]

My issue with these theories is their unstated intention - to "explain away" the unexplainable.
Thus Daniel had to have been written after the Greeks, because, after all, how could he
have possibly foreseen Alexander the Great and breakup of his kingdom into four empires.
So a later date is given, after Alexander.
Problem solved.
Or maybe not.
Daniel goes on to talk about the Messiah coming before the destruction of the temple.
This can't be post-dated to the first or second centuries so THE PROBLEM IS IGNORED.
Fact is - we have the book of Daniel centuries prior to Jesus. And there was no additions to
the Old Testament after the Babylonian return as the book was "sealed" - that's why Maccabees
is considered apocrypha.

I take exception to this bogus academia. Some things in the universe are far stranger than
we can imagine.

The Jewish sages wrote Daniel on or around 167-68 BC and began the tale in Babylon .. They made some serious errors on the treatment of the "good gigs" in Babylon.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Jewish sages wrote Daniel on or around 167-68 BC and began the tale in Babylon .. They made some serious errors on the treatment of the "good gigs" in Babylon.

Where's your evidence for this?
Stating "otherwise, how could they have known" doesn't cut it. If Daniel
could write of Rome, the Messiah and destruction of the temple then
Daniel would have also known of the Greeks.

 

[Deeje]

Just because Michael is called "the" archangel doesn't mean there's only one archangel. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Read what you wrote again......that is contradictory nonsense.

Now read your next comment and see the same contradiction.

And Yes it is true that the Bible does not mention "Archangel" in the plural and yes no other is called Archangel but what is also true is that the Bible does not say that there is only one Archangel.

There is only one Archangel just as there is only one God. Michael is the only Archangel....the one who commands all the angels. Angels have rank according to the scriptures. No one ranks higher than Michael.

Michael doesn't have authority over everyone, he's just the leader of his angels. Only God alone has authority over all the angels. And Jesus is God Himself.

Well, as you know, I do not believe in your trinity, so when Jesus arrives with all his angels to judge the world, he most certainly has authority over all existing intelligent beings....both angels and humans. He was not always in possession of this authority however. Daniel was privileged to see in vision, a future event that was to take place in heaven. This was hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus and thousands of years before our present day. He saw “the son of man” crowned as King of God’s Kingdom, by his God and Father. This was 2,500 years before it happened.

Daniel 7:13-14...
““I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.”

Daniel’s prophesies were written about “the time of the end” and he was told to “seal up the book” because until that time arrived, his prophesies would not be understood. (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)

Revelation, written at the end of the first century, was also about the future. It confirms that Jesus was granted authority from God for every action he carried out.

The war in heaven in which Satan and his hordes were evicted tells us something interesting.....

Revelation 12:7-12...
7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”

What do you see there? Michael and his angels battled Satan and his angels and won, sending them down to earth to do their darnedest before their 1000 year confinement in the abyss.
With that victory, the newly installed King of God’s kingdom wielded his authority and introduced the final days of this evil world system before God brings it to its finish. God has authorized his Christ to carry that out.

Authority is granted when God grants it. We see the same thing demonstrated when Christ gave the great commission to his disciples before his return to heaven.

Matthew 28:18...
“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
If Jesus is God, why does he not already have “all authority”?
Why does one part of God have to give authority to an equal art of himself? Now that is nonsense.

"Interestingly, the name of Jesus is linked with the word “archangel” in one of Paul’s letters"

That's a lie. Nowhere is it said that this angel is Jesus.

If Jesus is said to return to gather his anointed ones, and he calls them with “an archangel’s voice” ....why is a superior being using the voice of someone he outranks? Read 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16....
“14 For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”

The Lord has an archangel’s voice....so the Lord is logically, Michael.

Okay, you say it's all written in the Bible. I have a question for you, where do the demons come from and what are they?

As mentioned above, the demons are defectors from the ranks of God’s faithful angels. As free willed beings, they were lured into rebellion by their leader satan, and they have one aim.....to take as many into oblivion with them as they can. They are liars and deceivers and are particularly active on earth since their eviction from heaven, as indicated by Revelation 12:7-12. They know their time is almost up. They are no longer subtle in their approach. The world is saturated with an obsession for sex and violence which is their stock in trade. Look at what the world entertains itself with....! It’s Noah’s day all over again...just as Jesus said. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Their final destination is “the lake of fire”.....which the Bible says is “the second death”......nothing ever comes out of there because it is a place of eternal destruction.

 

[Spartan]

There are problems with Ezekiel too.

Ezekiel

They pale in comparison to your grade school understanding of the Bible.

 

[Spartan]

Daniel is NOT considered a prophet in Judaism.

Do you EVER do your homework?

The Prophet Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Comment: It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Dan 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Daniel 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

The Jewish Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings (Megillah 15a). http://www.virtualpurim.org/scripts/tgij/paper/IndexPurim.asp?ArticleID=1436&...

Was the Book of Daniel originally in the Prophetic Section of the Tanakh?

The Book of Daniel would not be out of place in the prophetic section, Joshua, Judges and Kings are included in the Prophets, and the translators of the Septuagint version of the Jewish Scriptures placed Daniel there also. Joseph D. Wilson, Did Daniel Write Daniel, page 84.

The present position of the Book (of Daniel) in the Hebrew Canon is not its original position. We have it on the authority of the Jewish historian Josephus that that at the close of the first century A.D. the Canon of the Old Testament books was differently arranged from that at present accepted among the Jews; and it is also evident from the writings of the Early Fathers that a change must have been made in the arrangement of the Jewish Canon between the middle of the third and the end of the fourth century A.D. - Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 276-277.

Josephus in Contra Apionem 1:8 writes, We have but twenty-two (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and the practical precepts to men.

Daniel was included in those 13 books.

Professor R.D. Wilson states: All the direct evidence, then, that precedes the year 200 A.D., supports the view that Daniel was in the earliest times among the Prophets. Thus Origen, at A.D. 250, and Jerome, at A.D. 400, both of whom were taught by Jewish Rabbis and claim to have gathered their information from Jewish sources, put Daniel among the Prophets and separate the strictly prophetical books from those which are more properly called historical. R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, page 49.

 

[sooda]

Where's your evidence for this?
Stating "otherwise, how could they have known" doesn't cut it. If Daniel
could write of Rome, the Messiah and destruction of the temple then
Daniel would have also known of the Greeks.

Daniel was writing about antiochus .

 

[sooda]

Do you EVER do your homework?

The Prophet Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Comment: It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Dan 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Daniel 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.

Jesus confirms Daniel is a Prophet

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.

The Jewish Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings (Megillah 15a). http://www.virtualpurim.org/scripts/tgij/paper/IndexPurim.asp?ArticleID=1436&...

Was the Book of Daniel originally in the Prophetic Section of the Tanakh?

The Book of Daniel would not be out of place in the prophetic section, Joshua, Judges and Kings are included in the Prophets, and the translators of the Septuagint version of the Jewish Scriptures placed Daniel there also. Joseph D. Wilson, Did Daniel Write Daniel, page 84.

The present position of the Book (of Daniel) in the Hebrew Canon is not its original position. We have it on the authority of the Jewish historian Josephus that that at the close of the first century A.D. the Canon of the Old Testament books was differently arranged from that at present accepted among the Jews; and it is also evident from the writings of the Early Fathers that a change must have been made in the arrangement of the Jewish Canon between the middle of the third and the end of the fourth century A.D. - Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 276-277.

Josephus in Contra Apionem 1:8 writes, We have but twenty-two (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and the practical precepts to men.

Daniel was included in those 13 books.

Professor R.D. Wilson states: All the direct evidence, then, that precedes the year 200 A.D., supports the view that Daniel was in the earliest times among the Prophets. Thus Origen, at A.D. 250, and Jerome, at A.D. 400, both of whom were taught by Jewish Rabbis and claim to have gathered their information from Jewish sources, put Daniel among the Prophets and separate the strictly prophetical books from those which are more properly called historical. R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, page 49.

He is found in the Dead Sea scrolls, but that's still fits the date of 168 BC.

Daniel is the hero of the biblical Book of Daniel. A noble Jewish youth of Jerusalem, he is taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and serves the king and his successors with loyalty and ability until the time of the Persian conqueror Cyrus, all the while remaining true to the God of Israel. The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed, and the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Six cities claim the Tomb of Daniel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure)

Danel, father of Aqhat, was a culture hero who appears in an incomplete Ugaritic text of the fourteenth century BCE at Ugarit, Syria, where the name is rendered DN'IL, "El is judge".

The Dating of the Book of Daniel. - westminster.edu
www4.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/rel101/daniel.htm
The most obvious conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. That would explain why the author is not very precise about sixth century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.

 

[sooda]

The Book of Daniel was written in reaction to the persecution of the Jews by the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167-164 BCE.

Its authors were the maskilim, the "wise", of whom Daniel is one: "Those among the people who are wise shall make many understand ...", and its fundamental theme is God's control over history. The climax comes with the prophecy of the resurrection of the dead.

Chapter 7 spoke of the coming "kingdom of heaven", but Daniel 10-12 does not say that history will end with the coming of the Jewish kingdom; rather, the "wise" will be brought back to life to lead Israel in the new kingdom of God.

In contemporary Christian millennialism, Daniel 11:36-45 is interpreted as a prophecy of the career and destruction of the Antichrist, and Daniel 12 as concerning the salvation of Israel (the modern State of Israel) and the coming kingdom of Christ.

Daniel's final vision - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

I am familiar with the NT, however. . . . It is clear that Christ is not a created being, therefore He is not in any way an "angelic΅ being.

I'm afraid it is clear that Jesus IS a created being....why is that so terrible?

If you understand the mechanics of the ransom...the role of a redeemer....then you will understand why God could never have come in human form to offer his life for the redemption of sinful humans. He didn't have to. Nor would it have been possible...he is immortal and immortals cannot die. Mere humans cannot kill God.

To redeem mankind from the sin of Adam, all Jesus had to be was 'sinless'....the exact equivalent of Adam. He didn't have to be God. In fact if he was God, then it would have been 'overkill' to the max.....like offering a kidnapper 100,000 trillion dollars when all he demanded was 100 thousand.

Paul calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation". (Colossians 1:15-17) He was the one who was by his Father's side in creation. He was the agency "through" whom all things were made to exist. He is not the Creator, but the Master Worker under his Father's direction. (Proverbs 8:30-31)

Why is the trinity so important to people? Why is it so ingrained that Jesus had to be God, when he never once made such a claim. All he ever said was that he was "God's son".

John 10:31-36...
"Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"

If you read that scripture in the Interlinear you will notice that the Jews were not accusing Jesus of being "the" God (ho theos) but "a god" (theos minus the definite article.) Jesus reminded them that God himself called even human judges in Israel "gods" because of their divine authority....but all Jesus said was that the was "the son of "the" God. ("‘You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?")

There are many "sons of God" mentioned in scripture....Adam was a 'son of God', as all created intelligent beings are. But there is only one "firstborn" (monogenes) and he is called God's "only begotten" because he was the first and only creation of his Father. All other things came from the Father, "through" the son.

Being made in God's image, we too are imbued with God's moral qualities. Jesus was also created in the image of his Father. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the beginning of God's creation"......why is that thought so offensive to trinitarians?

If we examine the scriptures carefully, we will see that there is more scripture proving that Jesus was not God than any that suggest that he might be. Without a direct statement from Jesus to that effect, we can only go by what the entirety of scripture says.

If the Jews did not believe that God was a trinity, then Jesus as a devout Jew, would never have taught such a blasphemous thing....and yet when Christendom wanted to make Jesus into God, they had to make it official church doctrine over 300 years after Jesus died. Remembering that Jesus and his apostles foretold that an apostasy would take Christians away from the truth...don't you have to wonder why all of Christendom insists on this doctrine when it didn't even exist in Jesus' day?

 

[sooda]

Where's your evidence for this?
Stating "otherwise, how could they have known" doesn't cut it. If Daniel
could write of Rome, the Messiah and destruction of the temple then
Daniel would have also known of the Greeks.

Of course he knew about Alexander and the Greeks... It was HISTORY. He knew about Rome. Do you know who Antiochus IV Epiphanes was?

The First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.E. Also history.

Daniel was written during the Maccabean Revolt.

Judah Maccabee was a Jewish priest and a son of the priest Mattathias. He led the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. The Jewish holiday of Hanukkah commemorates the restoration of Jewish worship at the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 164 BCE, after Judah Maccabeus removed all of the statues depicting Greek gods and goddesses and purified it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course he knew about Alexander and the Greeks... It was HISTORY. He knew about Rome. Do you know who Antiochus IV Epiphanes was?

The First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.E. Also history.

Daniel was written during the Maccabean Revolt.

Judah Maccabee was a Jewish priest and a son of the priest Mattathias. He led the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. The Jewish holiday of Hanukkah commemorates the restoration of Jewish worship at the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 164 BCE, after Judah Maccabeus removed all of the statues depicting Greek gods and goddesses and purified it.

Without going back into this stuff (I am at work) I recall Daniel speaking of the
temple as still standing until the Messiah comes. And of Rome that it would
take away even the Messiah.
This was strange stuff to Jews who saw in the Messiah the conqueror who
would re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
But Zechariah was the show that this same conquering Messiah would also
be the one who came as Redeemer - lowly and riding upon an ***, and having
his hands and feet pierced.

 

[sooda]

Without going back into this stuff (I am at work) I recall Daniel speaking of the
temple as still standing until the Messiah comes. And of Rome that it would
take away even the Messiah.
This was strange stuff to Jews who saw in the Messiah the conqueror who
would re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
But Zechariah was the show that this same conquering Messiah would also
be the one who came as Redeemer - lowly and riding upon an ***, and having
his hands and feet pierced.

Antiochus defiled the Temple.. The Seleucid Empire was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty. Antiochus was the Abomination of Desolation.

The problem here that is so hard to overcome the bad theology of Cyrus Scofield, Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye.

 

[PruePhillip]

Antiochus defiled the Temple.. The Seleucid Empire was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty. Antiochus was the Abomination of Desolation.

The problem here that is so hard to overcome the bad theology of Cyrus Scofield, Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye.

Never heard of these characters.
I just accept that bible at face value. Certainly there can be an issue with literal vs
symbolic language, but on the whole I take the bible literally. If it says that Daniel
lived in the days of Nebuchadnezzar than I am fine with that. Some will find material
to support this claim and so will find material to contradict it - generally I don't read
either.

And bear in mind - after the reconstruction of the temple the bible became a "sealed"
book. From the days of Ezra, Nehemiah etc there were no new books added to what
we call the Old Testament.

 

[sooda]

Never heard of these characters.
I just accept that bible at face value. Certainly there can be an issue with literal vs
symbolic language, but on the whole I take the bible literally. If it says that Daniel
lived in the days of Nebuchadnezzar than I am fine with that. Some will find material
to support this claim and so will find material to contradict it - generally I don't read
either.

And bear in mind - after the reconstruction of the temple the bible became a "sealed"
book. From the days of Ezra, Nehemiah etc there were no new books added to what
we call the Old Testament.

You figure Daniel lived 400 years?

 

[sooda]

Never heard of these characters.
I just accept that bible at face value. Certainly there can be an issue with literal vs
symbolic language, but on the whole I take the bible literally. If it says that Daniel
lived in the days of Nebuchadnezzar than I am fine with that. Some will find material
to support this claim and so will find material to contradict it - generally I don't read
either.

And bear in mind - after the reconstruction of the temple the bible became a "sealed"
book. From the days of Ezra, Nehemiah etc there were no new books added to what
we call the Old Testament.

There were more OT books.. I have already posted a link.

 

[PruePhillip]

You figure Daniel lived 400 years?

No matter if he lived 400 years, or saw out the Roman empire ca 450 AD.
Daniel's book is an account of the there and then.

 

[sooda]

No matter if he lived 400 years, or saw out the Roman empire ca 450 AD.
Daniel's book is an account of the there and then.

Only if he lived over 400 years.. No issues with critical thinking?

 

[PruePhillip]

Only if he lived over 400 years.. No issues with critical thinking?

Well, Daniel spoke of the Messiah, the "Son of man", coming to His temple while it
still stood - but "cut off" by the enemy of Israel. So, assuming he actually wrote his
book during the days of the Greeks he seemed to be seeing things two centuries
into the future. You may as well say he saw things six centuries into the future, and
be done with it.
This book was madness to the Jews. How can Daniel speak of ANOTHER temple
destruction? How can the king of the Jews be destroyed, and not for himself but for
His people?

 

[Spartan]

The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed...

That's nonsense. Show me the data on that so-called "consensus"?

The most obvious conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. That would explain why the author is not very precise about sixth century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.

That's also absurd.

If Daniel was written as late as is claimed then how did he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel critic ignores this point.

Again, if the book was written during the Maccabean era to meet the current needs then why does so little of the book reflect the events that are recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees? Why is there no call to arms? Why the silence concerning the revolt, its leaders, and heroes? This is especially surprising since the uprising began in 168 B.C.! [contra Graubart, 260; notice also that the book doesn't mention the asphyxiation of a thousand devout Jews (Hasidim) by Antiochus' troops in their desert caves--Trever, 89]

If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text? In fact, scholars Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel! [Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon. (Baker, 1967): 94; cited by Waltke (1976): 325; Emery, 21; Boutflower, 246] Baldwin points out that "the fact that no more than three Greek words occur in the Aramaic of Daniel (and these are technical terms) argues against a second-century date for the writing of the book." [Baldwin (1978a): 34] This fact, as noted by Boutflower (page 246), is especially relevant in comparison with the 19 Persian loan words that are present in the text. Why should an older language assume such prominence in this work? This is the opposite of what we should expect given the normal custom of the ANE (or anywhere else for that matter). As Kitchen, professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, notes: "In Ancient Near Eastern literature, a later writer tends to deck his description of an earlier period with trappings of his *own* time, while retaining archaic features that have survived."

If Daniel originated in Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. as alleged then why doesn't the language of the book reflect the Hebrew that was common at that time--i.e., as reflected in the Qumran scrolls? [Goldingay, xxv] Distinct differences have been noted and it has been shown that the Qumran documents have none of the distinct characteristics of the Hebrew chapters in Daniel. [For a detailed presentation see Archer (1974): 470-481] Archer concludes that "in the areas of syntax, word order, morphology, vocabulary, spelling, and word-usage, there is absolutely no possibility of regarding Daniel as contemporary" [to other second century documents]. He submits that "centuries must have intervened between them."

These findings mean that the Aramaic documents from Qumran *require* that Daniel was written far earlier than the Maccabean thesis allows and that the book was *not* written in Palestine. The Date of the Book of Daniel